Labour’s MEP manifesto: From naive pacifism to small island realism

Labour’s concise manifesto for next June’s MEP elections offers a small island perspective on economic themes, committing its MEPs to bring local realities to the European table. 

From shipping to climate change, Labour’s MEPs will have the task to put Malta’s smallness on the EU agenda. 

However, the manifesto conspicuously omits several themes important to European socialists, including the rule of law and feminism. It also fails to recognise Russia’s aggression against Ukraine as “a turning point in history”. And while taking a dig at Roberta Metsola for her stance on Gaza, it falls short of advocating sanctions against Israel’s relentless violations of international law. 

Peace and love in the age of aggression 

The Labour manifesto references Ukraine twice and describes the Russian invasion as “an aggression” once. It largely appeals for caution on both the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the ongoing tensions in Gaza and the Middle East. It speaks of the need to “engage in diplomatic efforts” and takes a dig at Roberta Metsola by warning against “premature reactions, which could possibly lead to tragic consequences.” 

But it remains unclear how one can negotiate with Vladimir Putin in the absence of Russia’s withdrawal from conquered Ukrainian territory. The reality is that we are not living in an age of peace and love but in an era where international law is being constantly challenged by actors who believe that might is right. 

The European Socialists underline their support for the European defence industry through targeted and smarter spending fully aware that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was a ‘turning point in history’. On the contrary, the commitment of Labour MEPs to “ensure that the Europe we are part of serves as a promoter of peace amongst people worldwide, rather than a source of conflict or division,” sounds like empty declarations made by Eurovision or Miss World contestants. (Photo: European Defence Agency)

Labour’s definition of neutrality is qualified in the manifesto as one which does not exclude “a clear position against any wrongdoing.” However, unlike the European Socialists, Labour seems to ignore the changed geopolitical reality, in which Europe is facing an aggressor that has no qualms about using military might to crush insubordinate neighbours. 

In this context, Labour’s pacifist credentials underlined in the commitment that Labour MEPs will “ensure that the Europe we are part of serves as a promoter of peace amongst people worldwide, rather than a source of conflict or division,” sounds like empty declarations made by Eurovision or Miss World contestants. 

This raises the question; is Labour naive or is it ready to undermine the current EU consensus and partner with the likes of Victor Orban? 

Labour’s foreign policy stance clearly contrasts with the European Socialists’ recognition that “Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine is a turning point in history,” which underscores the need for “greater collaboration and deeper solidarity” in facing a new and dangerous international environment. 

In contrast to the PL, the European Socialists underline their support for the European defence industry through targeted and smarter spending. The PL’s stance on Ukraine clearly falls short of the EU Socialists’ “unwavering support” for Ukraine, by “providing political, humanitarian, financial, and military assistance for as long as needed”, with the goal being “to support Ukraine in restoring its territorial integrity and achieving a just and sustainable peace”. 

One can criticise the EU Socialists (and the west at large) for double standards, especially when one contrasts their support for Ukraine and their timid support for a “sustainable ceasefire” in the current aggression against Palestinians in Gaza.  While the Socialists “support an international peace conference to achieve an equitable two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians that respects the rights and duties of the two peoples,” they fall short of calling for effective sanctions against Israel punishing its blatant violation of international law. 

Labour’s manifesto takes a dig at Roberta Metsola for her stance on Gaza but falls short of advocating sanctions against Israel’s relentless violations of international law. (Photo: X/EP President)

This is one aspect where one would have expected Labour to bring its historic support for the Palestinian cause to the European table. Labour candidates could make a difference by working alongside socialist MEPs from countries like Spain to push for a fundamental shift in the EU’s position. However, Labour’s manifesto falls short of any forceful reproach of Israel’s contempt for international law.   

Against the one-size-fits-all dogma 

More understandable is Maltese Labour’s focus on Malta’s small island realities. This provides Labour MEPs with the opportunity to make a difference by bringing Maltese realities to the negotiating table and to shape the progressive agenda. 

One of the most interesting proposals made in Labour’s manifesto is for a “systematic evaluation of the impact on small member states and island state members” to be “carried out before enacting any legislation.”  While there is no excuse for delaying measures addressing existential threats like climate change, bringing Malta’s realities to the table can complement and even ensure greater consensus for these commitments. 

The PL’s manifesto correctly notes that as an island member state, Malta has a far greater dependency on the aviation and maritime sectors compared to other countries. These sectors are crucial for all our imports and exports and for the tourism industry.  Still, Labour’s intransigent commitment that its MEPs will “stand firm in the face of pressures that oppose our national interests” and that “Maltese and Gozitan families and businesses will always come first” is alien to the give-and-take diplomacy that characterises the European Union. Moreover, there is no guarantee that Malta will always have its way.  At best, it can mitigate the impact of certain measures. 

For example, Labour now speaks of protecting and promoting the Maltese maritime sector, “while offering incentives for decarbonisation efforts and supporting shipping routes that connect us to other continents.” Yet the government has been criticised by local business lobbies for not doing enough to protect local industry when new EU regulations were recently introduced.  The EU can’t be expected to delay measures directed against one of the most polluting industries, but a case can be made to mitigate the impact on smaller countries. 

Another vague Labour commitment is its call for a “substantial reduction of bureaucracy” to make “European Union assistance more easily accessible”. The reality is that there is good bureaucracy, which protects citizens and workers from abuse, and bad bureaucracy, which stifles job creation. For example, the EU Socialists advocate more bureaucracy when calling for “stricter procurement rules including for EU funds” to “ensure that recipients of public money respect workers’ rights and collective bargaining.” 

And in contrast to the EU socialists’ commitment to “make sure taxes are paid where profits are made” the PL’s manifesto is devoid of any commitment for tax justice, which is a salient theme in the European socialists’ manifesto. 

Another major omission in the manifesto is any reference to food inflation, an issue on which MEP Alex Agius Saliba has taken a pro-active stance by calling on the EU commission to investigate local cartels in food distribution. 

This was a rare case of Labour MEPs using EU tools to curb abusive practices in Malta. With regards to inflation, which is a top concern of the Maltese, the manifesto only references the government’s commitment to the “bold decision to keep our energy prices fixed.” 

Immigration pressures 

While rejecting racism and far-right politics, Labour’s manifesto vaguely hints at a “robust policy to prevent deaths at sea and combat human trafficking” through “collaboration with transit and origin countries”. 

In the past years this collaboration has taken the form of unofficial and dubious agreements involving the Libyan coast guard to stop departures. 

Unlike Labour in Malta, the European Socialists qualify their support for agreements with transit countries by insisting on “accountability and transparency”, something that has been lacking in dealings between Libya, Tunisia, Malta, and Italy. 

Moreover, the EU Socialists make it clear that they are “against any form of EU border externalisation,” a proposal floated by the European People’s Party which favours detention centres in third countries which will be responsible for processing their asylum applications.  Unlike Labour in Malta, which has often clashed with charity organisations rescuing migrants at sea, the EU Socialists also promise “never to criminalise humanitarian assistance,” while supporting “a European mission for search and rescue in the Mediterranean.” 

Labour’s most radical proposal is its stance for the “repatriation of immigrants without the right to stay in the European Union”. On this aspect even the EU socialists are somewhat vague when they advocate a “well-functioning system” where “return decisions” are “carried out effectively, in a safe and dignified manner.” This suggests that Labour is not alone in the progressive camp to feel the pressure to address public concerns, fuelling the rise of the far right. Moreover, European socialists also tend to speak a different language than the one used by their MEPs in EU institutions when they are in power in other member states. 

While advocating the repatriation of failed asylum seekers Labour also advocates “more incentives to attract skilled workers to the EU, whilst respecting existing national schemes.” This intellectually honest stance reflects the demographic realities and the labour shortages facing Malta and other EU member states.  But it also begs the question on why failed asylum seekers, especially those who have been working in Malta for decades are not regularised in a way that they can contribute to economic growth without being exploited.  

A rule of law black hole? 

Despite the crisis gripping the country following the conclusion of a magisterial inquiry on the sale of public hospitals, the PL’s manifesto does not even include a single reference to the ‘rule of law’ issue. 

In contrast, the European Socialists insist that upholding the rule of law is “the best defence against abuses of power.” They also underline the crucial role of a “trustworthy judiciary,” civil society, and media pluralism in fostering democracy. Moreover, the socialists also “want clear rules and sanctions, using all available tools to ensure that no EU funding reaches autocratic governments.” 

Not so feminist anymore? 

But the most shocking omission in the PL’s manifesto is any reference to gender equality, a central plank in the campaigns of other European socialists. This is especially damning from a government which once prided itself on being the most feminist in Maltese history. 

The Labour government’s nominee for European Commissioner five years ago, Helena Dalli, was handed the equality portfolio after having championed civil rights advances in Malta. But in its manifesto for the 2024 election, the PL omits any reference to gender equality and women’s rights. (Photo: Claudio Centonze/European Commission)

In contrast, the European Socialists proudly underline their feminist credentials by expressing pride in being “the party of feminism” while insisting that women should be “in control of their own lives and bodies with free and full access to their sexual and reproductive health and rights.” 

This further underlines the rift between continental progressives, for whom abortion is a basic right, and the current crop of Labour MEP candidates, none of whom have taken a pro-choice stance. 

Also awkward is Labour’s failure to take pride in its impressive track record on the rights of the LGBTIQ+ community, a sector where Labour turned Malta from a laggard to a global leader. One way of doing this could have been by calling for enshrining these rights across the European continent, especially in view of the EU socialists' pledge to “push for the adoption of the European Anti-Discrimination Directive.”